Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
ED 136 130
AUTHOR
TITLE
PUB DATE
NOTE
EDRS PRICE
DESCRIPTORS
IDENTIFIERS
CG 011 167
ABSTRACT
***********************************************************************
Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal unpublished
* materials not available from other sources. ERIC makes every effort *
* to obtain the best copy available. Nevertheless, items of marginal *
* reproducibility are often encountered and this affects the quality *
*
* of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makes available
* via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). EDRS is not
* responsible for the quality of the original document. Reproductions *
*
* supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original..
***********************************************************************
ID
prs
David L. DeVries
La
1This study was conducted under the auspices of the Center for
.--I
.--1
0
0
C.)
OF HEALTH,
U S. DEPARTMENT
EDUCATION A WELFARE
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
EDUCATiON
OPINIONS
VIEW OR
ATING IT POINTS OF
NECESSARILY REPRESTATED DO NOT
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
SENT OFFICIAL
OR POLICY
EDUCATION POSITION
Abstract
Their effect
TGT (Teams-Games-Tournament)
A study
TGT
Introduction
Both basic
TGT:
A review.
The
The tournament component consists of weekly (or even twiceweekly) game-playing sessions, typically lasting 30 to 50
minutes, in which each student competes with two other comparable
students representing other teams.
scores are converted to team scores, the team scores are ranked,
and winning teams are declared.
Research questions.
Additionally,
Subjects
score for the Vocabulary section was 4.2 (range from 1.5 to 7.1)
and for Comprehension was 4.2 (range from 1.4 to 7.0).
Procedure
For the language arts experiment, the students had been randomly
assigried (stratifying on verbal ability) to the two treatment
conditions.
skills using the Ginn 360 series (levels 7, 8, and 9), with
Reading-Thinking Skills (published by Continental) being the
source for verbal analogies.
These
Six
A typical
A student at each game table would read aloud the definition and
The student would then say which
The student's
An example is:
(c) bewildered
A practice worksheet
was designed for each game, and the students worked on ti".ese
taught to the TGT students were also taught to the Control students
10
Informal
ReRendent Variables
The first
11
A thirty-item Treatment-Specific
Data Analysis
12
1 0
Results
Vocabulary skills.
the
13
15.39, p <
.01,
11
and Ability-by-Treatment
2
RT =
Test (Table 2)
detail in Table 1.
than did Control.
As in:
Fi
L.
the
Table 1
.01, RI =
The
14
12
the A term.
interaction effects.
Table 1 show the TGT group to have scored higher than did Control.
Summary.
For verbal analogies, a positive and strong TGT effect was noted
for the treatment specific measure.
This
study extends the TGT research to a new skill area--reading-and suggests the technique may have relevance for teaching both
basic vocabulary skills as well as more complex comprehension
skills such as understanding of verbal analogies.
What follows
It is important in
15
13
Gates-MacGinitie measure.
Such an
summarized a
at pre-test,
(a gain of 63%).
The current
upper end of the test scale, both test.s may have been insensitive
16
14
show,
As these percentages
stu
the TGT
mas7 ry.
the TC7
17
15
The present
The
language arts.
base f
The model
of conuL
As
structur.
:=7.
18
When
16
Further research
TGT is published
Under development
for 1977 are 400 mathematics and language arts games which
represent an integrated TGT curriculum.
19
17
References
Cohen, J.
system.
DeVries, D. L.
A gaming technique
21-33.
Expectancy thL
Paper presented
Teams-Games-Tournament:
An
L.
Teams-Games-
A replication.
Edwards, K.
Effects oi
20
18
247-269.
Reading:
Farr, R.
Newark, Delaware:
B. H.
the classroom.
An effective combiantion in
Review of
McKeatchie, W. J.
21
Psychological Bulletin,
19
Table 1
CONTROL
TGT
Treatment Specific i
S.D.
Vocabulary Test
(60 Items)
Gates-MacGinitie
Vocabulary Test
i
S.D.
(52 Items)
Treatment Specific X
Verbal Analogies
S.D.
Test
Verbal Analogies
Test
(24 Items)
Post
Pre
Post
35.04
13.72
55.04
5.20
40.77
11.76
52.15
6.44
(27)
(27)
(26)
(26)
35.78
9.28
46.93
4.37
37.44
9.43
44.63
6.61
(27)
(27)
(24)
(24)
15.41
27.82
16.96
25.96
4.81
2.47
5.01
3.85
(27)
(26)
(26)
(27)
(30 Items)
Note:
Pre
i
S.D.
22
20.30
3.09
19.65
4.10
(27)
(25)
20
Table '
Trea
nalys
4 General Lu
F(7 Tests an
s MacGinitLe Tests
Incremental
DEPENDENT
SOURCE OF
VARIABLE
VARIANCE
Treatment Specific
Vocabulary Test
Ability (A)
Treatment (B)
A X B
Total
1,51
1,50
1,49
.36
.15
.05
.56
28.86**
15.39**
5.37*
Ability (A)
Treatment (B)
A X B
Total
1,49
1,48
1,47
.43
.08
.06
.57
37.12**
7.69**
6.39*
Ability (A)
Treatment (B)
A X B
Total
1,51
1,50
1,49
.29
.14
.02
.45
21.32**
12.26**
Ability (A)
Treatment (B)
A X B
Total
1,51
1,50
1,49
.29
.03
.00
.32
21.11**
2.36
(n = 53)
Gates-MacGinitie
Vocabulary Test
(n = 51)
Treatment-Specific
Verbal Analogies Test
(n = 53)
DF
Verbal Analogies
Test
(n = 53)
'
*P < .05
**P < .01
23
Ratiol
1.74
21
60
0
0
55
SO
45
0
40
H
4-1
35
CJ
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
Figure 1.
24
22
60
26